[PART 1] Official BLF GT Group Buy thread. Group buy officially closed! Lights shipping.

I would get several of those no matter what they are yet i would like to see the host form of it, it seems that XHP35 will prevail at the end so at least let us the host option and W3/XLP2 ftw :slight_smile:

Whats the idea behind the high CRI option in a thrower?

If you’re really trying to make a large diameter light, I recommend designing the large diameter parts in segments that are an inch or two thick. Go much thicker than that and prices for stock go through the roof, and that’s if you can even find what you want. For example, to fit a 120mm reflector, you may be looking at a 6 inch cube, so you’re starting costs off at $118 per light plus shipping if you buy that from McMaster. Take it down to smaller segments like I suggest, and you might be able to find suitable hunks of aluminum that local shops are scrapping, which in my city would cost roughly $10 per light for enough stock to build an assembly that large.

I’m not an addict. I can stop whenever I want…

Ok, sign me up…

I’m in, lantern style (top handle) would be my choice, with a reflector this size a pluger type will be unpleasantly unwieldy, while you great minds are at it, why not make it vailable in a number of LED choice XHP35, XHP50, XHP70, anything under XHP35 die size with a reflector this big will throw a somewhat useless laser like beam.

Would like a very strongly driven neutral XHP70 personaly, it should give a relatively broad beam with around 200Kcd throw, a more practical K60 on steroids.

I love Djozz’s design btw, looks like the center of gravity could be aligned with the middle of the handle, perfect balance.

Have been waiting for this one… I am in depending on price

Tripod socket please :smiley:

Hello!

Fellows, thinking in putting some bucks in a bigass reflector?

Did anyone dared to try a triple lens setup before?

This is my idea (v2):

  1. Stage one. Pre-collimator: a narrow angle TIR.
  2. Stage two. A convex/plano-convex lens, converging the beam to some point up front:
  3. Stage three. A concave/plano-concave lens gives us our final result. Check the following pic borrowed from Lens (optics) at wikipedia.

Cheers ^:)

Original post date: Tue, 11/01/2016 - 14:12; edited: refined idea.

That is very interesting indeed. Especially considering the ludicrous TN42 price. If it is considerably cheaper people will buy it, but it must be cheap. And it mush have at least 1mcd.

Very good idea since no Chinese cheap manufacturer has gotten around to trump the TN42 for a quarter of the price, yet. And it is very easy and possible, all you need is a bigger reflector. And you have found it.

Also it is very nice to use a reasonable amount of batteries, like 4x18650. And to be able to use pulled cells, and not only INR. Since the XHP35 will pull ~4A, any battery can do that. No need for more than 4 batteries. High CRI is also not needed in this kind of light. Yes i love high cri, but in this particular situation every possible lumen and cd counts. And maximum output should be crucial.

Personally I never would have considered doing a “box-style” light, like those plastic “spot lights” linked earlier, but now that its out there I really like the idea. I think most of us have shelves full of lights at this point and probably nobody in this thread actually needs another one, so lets do something very different. I’m in either way, but I really hope y’all go forward with a fantastic “box spotlight” style.

I purchased 4 TN42’s for $161.00@ so whats a TK61 cost $122.00-$130.00? Not that bad after all in my book! Everybody loves it, one guy wanted me to mod his with a XHP70, he has changed his mind since he has been using it in the field! The relector is the Heart of this Beast good luck with that part of the project!

I purchased a fifth TN42 for modding. Keeping the other one stock to test against, Winters coming got to have something to do! :slight_smile:

Agreed, I especially like that the reflector would be provided by an American Company and, I think, manufactured here too. On the other hand, I would also be interested in hearing about other big reflector options. Especially, shallow reflectors as I do like wide spill if possible. I would prefer throw over spill if I had to chose though.

Hi! :-)

Updated my previous idea on #63. In fact, I know think it may be the perfect recipe for incredible performance zoomies. Of course I may be wrong, yet check it out!

Über-cheers ^:)

I prefer throw over spill any day…

Yes several well focussed lenses would make a very interesting light for sure.
This is about reflector based throw.
A wide reflector to get the throw.

Also a zoomie with two lenses and now even three, wow, this needs a real good manufacturer that is very actively working with us and can deliver extreme build precision
Let’s see how the Q8, possible future Q4 and this giga thrower (maybe a manufacturer feels compelled to step in seeing this thread) pan out first to see how far we can come with projects relatively easy (yet challenging in itself :wink: ) compared to three or double lensed zoomies.

I have no idea what optical lay-out you are proposing Barkuti? At least your posts are so unclear that I can not figure anything out.

I’m with mdeni. I’d gladly sacrifice some CRI towards longer throw on a light like this. It’s not like you can actually see the color of things very well a kilometer away anyways.

Just sourcing some D4 4A/4D (XHP35A-H0-0000-0D0BD445E) emitters should be enough. Too bad Cree doesn’t offer 3 or 2 step ellipse bins on these, so we could get less tint variation between samples.

edit: emitter model added

Awesome! Many more months of education and fun. I would like at least one.

In our quest for more throw, I think beam angle needs to be considered. When increasing reflector size and keeping the emitter the same size, at some point the beam will become just too narrow to be useful. The point at which this happens will be different for different people and for different uses.

If a 120mm reflector and XHP35 HI is used, the beam will be a bit smaller than that of the TN42 with its ~92mm reflector. I don’t have the TN42, but based on the sizes of the emitter and reflector, I think its beam size should be similar to (or a bit smaller than) a UF1504 with XPL HI. In my experience, this is a usable beam, especially at greater distances (300-400m) where it illuminates a larger area. But much smaller than this I think is bordering on too small.

So, I think XHP35 HI should be used rather than dedomed XPL or XPG2. Or multiple emitters, but this increases complexity and cost.

djozz, take a look at the Encyclopædia Britannica picture I posted before:

0K. Imagine the “eye” corresponds to the TIR mounted emitter in our setup. Now, after the short focal distance convex lens (or 2 in series lens team), a sliding concave lens finishes the job:

Well, hope you can see it. Not an expert in optics, you may guess.

Should allow zooming, and should allow to tune the “track” width somehow, while caring little to none about the emitter setup as long as the focusing is well done (TIR + convex selection).

By the way, any known good TIRs for XHP70s? All those old XR-E ones by any chance?

maukka, take a look at this beautie:

XHP35A-H0-0000-0D0UB40DT @ Cutter Electronics 7000K, 90+CRI

Cheers my dears ^:)

There’s really no point in a very cool white high CRI emitter on a thrower. The blue light will wash out colors (and the blue beam in the air disguises what ever you wanted to look at anyway). Also the output is a third lower than with a lower CRI neutral one, that will look much better regardless of CRI.